Why God? - Light's view.

[xSilverPhinx]

I remember hearing a scientist say once,  'we don't know why the universe began but we're working on that', I couldn't help but laugh.  You think you're going to find an answer as to why the universe began or exists with science?  Either that's arrogance or denial.    

Arrogance? Really?

I always thought people claiming to know what they don't to be arrogant. There is no arrogance in saying that you don't know something, but are trying to figure it out to the best of your ability.

I don't know, science has only a few models to explain portions of reality, but I know that there was a super intelligence that created the universe and has a special place for me in it (for some theists).

Do you really wonder why many people find that sort of statement laughable? Hardly impressive.

[Light]

I remember hearing a scientist say once,  'we don't know why the universe began but we're working on that', I couldn't help but laugh.  You think you're going to find an answer as to why the universe began or exists with science?  Either that's arrogance or denial.    

Arrogance? Really?

I always thought people claiming to know what they don't to be arrogant. There is no arrogance in saying that you don't know something, but are trying to figure it out to the best of your ability.

I don't know, science has only a few models to explain portions of reality, but I know that there was a super intelligence that created the universe and has a special place for me in it (for some theists).

Do you really wonder why many people find that sort of statement laughable? Hardly impressive.

It's no more laughable to me than believing one can answer a philosophical question using the scientific method.

[Tank]

I remember hearing a scientist say once,  'we don't know why the universe began but we're working on that', I couldn't help but laugh.  You think you're going to find an answer as to why the universe began or exists with science?  Either that's arrogance or denial.    

Arrogance? Really?

I always thought people claiming to know what they don't to be arrogant. There is no arrogance in saying that you don't know something, but are trying to figure it out to the best of your ability.

I don't know, science has only a few models to explain portions of reality, but I know that there was a super intelligence that created the universe and has a special place for me in it (for some theists).

Do you really wonder why many people find that sort of statement laughable? Hardly impressive.

It's no more laughable to me than believing one can answer a philosophical question using the scientific method.

Any philosophical question worth asking may, in due course, fall under the perview of the scientific method.

[Light]

It's no more laughable to me than believing one can answer a philosophical question using the scientific method.

Any philosophical question worth asking may, in due course, fall under the perview of the scientific method.

Ok.  But, I think it's reasonable to say that certain questions are inherently beyond the limits of scientific understanding,  such as 'why or how the cosmos came into existence'.  

[Davin]

It's no more laughable to me than believing one can answer a philosophical question using the scientific method.

Any philosophical question worth asking may, in due course, fall under the perview of the scientific method.

Ok.  But, I think it's reasonable to say that certain questions are inherently beyond the limits of scientific understanding,  such as 'why or how the cosmos came into existence'. 

I'll give you that maybe some questions are currently beyond the limits of science, but because the limits of science are always growing, I think it would be unreasonable to say that something will always be beyond the limits of science.

[Tank]

It's no more laughable to me than believing one can answer a philosophical question using the scientific method.

Any philosophical question worth asking may, in due course, fall under the perview of the scientific method.

Ok.  But, I think it's reasonable to say that certain questions are inherently beyond the limits of scientific understanding,  such as 'why or how the cosmos came into existence'.  

Obviously I don't agree

The reason I don't agree is the progress of our understanding of the natural world over the last 200/300 years. There are questions being answered now that we could not even have conceived of asking 100 years ago. Superstitious world views have continuously been eroded in the face of hard science. I see no reason why these conditions will change. You may be right that the reason behind our existence will remain forever beyond our understanding; but forever is a long time. Superstition has ruled humankind ever since the first human described a bad dream to another human. I think we have 100,000 years or so before the scientific method can have been considered to have had a fair run at the ultimate question, and to dismiss the possibility that it may answer the ultimate question smacks a bit of protectionism.

[Light]

And btw, I can already imagine some people criticizing me as misquoting Dawkins because he actually used the word 'how' not 'why'.  Well , I didn't remember his exact words when I originally posted on it.  But, it doesn't matter since asking either how or why the cosmos came into existence are still philosophical questions.  Not something science will ever answer.

I agree that with the normal uses of "how" and "why" in this context that it doesn't matter much, but I don't agree with you that science will never find an answer to the question. How do you know that science will never find the answer?

Because you're getting into a question that is beyond experimentation, observation/prediction, so then not totally scientific.

[Asmodean]

Because you're getting into a question that is beyond experimentation, observation/prediction, so then not totally scientific.

The short answer to those questions is "I don't know".

Is there life on other planets? We don't know. There is no reason we know of for it NOT to exist out there, and it sort of does exist here, so why not..? But the hard fact here and now is that we do not know.

What was there "before" the Big Bang? Same answer. We don't know. We can speculate and hypothesize, but that does not change the fact.

"I don't know" is a good enough answer. From there, we can look for a better one(s), but "I don't know" will remain the answer until proven otherwise.

[Whitney]

Making stuff up has nothing to do with my original point.   It's the acknowledgement on the limits of knowledge, which can then lead people to believe in a concept such as God.    

I think it is folly to shove god into knowledge gaps...it doesn't make god any more real and doesn't make us any more knowledgeable.

I don't think it is arrogant at all for science to try to find the answers to everything...it is arrogant to claim to have special knowledge of what can and cannot be known

[The Magic Pudding]

I think it is folly to shove god into knowledge gaps...it doesn't make god any more real and doesn't make us any more knowledgeable.

But it's the season to be jolly, for holly and other things that end in olly.

Have a lolly.

[Light]

Making stuff up has nothing to do with my original point.   It's the acknowledgement on the limits of knowledge, which can then lead people to believe in a concept such as God.    

I think it is folly to shove god into knowledge gaps...it doesn't make god any more real and doesn't make us any more knowledgeable.

I don't think it is arrogant at all for science to try to find the answers to everything...it is arrogant to claim to have special knowledge of what can and cannot be known

Really? everything?  So science you believe can one day answer something like why you are who you are?  There's going to be a mathematical formula one day that completely describes Whitney?

[Asmodean]

Really? everything?  So science you believe can one day answer something like why you are who you are?  There's going to be a mathematical formula one day that completely describes Whitney?

...Because mathematics is the only science out there, yes?  

Science can provide a nice enough explanation for why a person is who and what the person is at current level, you know.

[Light]

Well, they're pretty much founded on math, so....

[Asmodean]

Well, they're pretty much founded on math, so....

...How is math the founding block of psychology? History? Linguistics?

[Light]

Well, they're pretty much founded on math, so....

...How is math the founding block of psychology? History? Linguistics?

It's not.  But, I don't see any of those disciplines leading to some all-encompassing theory to describe any individual either.   I think a lot of truth about one's self is a personal discovery, not something that can every be fully described by some simple theory or book.